Not to me. The statements suffer from a common math problem: using single letters. if the names were better, maybe they would be obvious. But instead I have to keep back referencing former definitions to remember what they were.
I have to do something similar with p(1) and p(2) - I need to make sure my memory is correct on which data is in which place. If you could reference them in a more obvious way that would help.
I also have to make an assumption from the very start - what "t" refers to is only obvious in definition 3, when it was used in definitions 1 & 2.
It's ironic that the article recommends thinking in math and writing in code when they have thought in math and written in math.